Traditionally, the United States has adopted a foreign policy that refuses to ratify the International Criminal Court treaty. This lecture explores the moral and legal responsibilities that the U.S. has in preventing and punishing mass atrocities across the globe. It argues that not only would American support of the ICC reinforce our deep faith in the rule of law, it is also a moral imperative to endorse this international institution. This lecture suggests that Americans have special talents to bring to this endeavor, as well as a collective responsibility to recognize and remember our shared humanity and to help improve the lot of those who are less fortunate. Drawing inspiration from the great American legal philosopher John Rawls, the author suggests that America’s moral obligations should arise not just from national self-interest, but should also produce the greatest payoff for the least advantaged among us. From this original position, as Rawls calls it, rules that promote social equality are the most desirable as they protect everyone. This lecture begins with the birth of international criminal law after the great wars of the last Century, and briefly discusses efforts to build a system of international criminal justice. Finally, the author concludes with why the United States should not only support, but also one day lead, the new International Criminal Court, and the world, in ending impunity for the commission of crimes against humanity.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Blogging will be light the rest of the day as I am attending the Works-in-Progress Workshop of the American Society of International Law's International Organizations Interest Group at the headquarters of the Organization of American States in Washington, DC. Here's the final program:

Welcome

Jean Michel Arrighi, Secretary for Legal Affairs, Organization of American States

Monash University's Faculty of Law will host a conference on "'Through the Looking Glass' – National Engagement with International and Foreign Law and Governance," December 1-3, 2010, in Sydney. The program is here. Here's the idea:

This two-day conference/workshop brings together international and Australian audiences from government, academia, the courts, and the broader legal profession to discuss international, comparative, and national perspectives on municipal judicial engagement with international and foreign law.

Marko Milanovic (Univ. of Nottingham - Law) will give a talk today at the University of Nottingham School of Law-International Law Association (British Branch) Regional Seminar Series on "Is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Binding on Individuals? (And Why We Should Care)."

Scott Sheeran (Univ. of Essex - Law) will give a talk today at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law's Friday Lunchtime Lecture Series on "UN Peacekeeping and International Law: The Need for Reform."

According to critics in some of the Nordic countries the bodies that monitor and adjudicate international human rights courts are undermining their own legitimacy by adhering to undemocratic practices. The strongest normative case against the judicial review that such bodies perform could be directed at the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR), which monitors many wellfunctioning democracies. Section 1 lists normative objections to judicial review in general. Section 2 sketches a normative defense this practice, and Section 3 presents some relevant aspects of the ECtHR. Section 4 returns to consider the various objections. The mandate, composition, institutional environment and mode of operation of the ECtHR renders it immune to several of these criticisms. The conclusion identifies some objections that merit further attention, both for empirical research and for normative analysis.

"A community of scholars" is looking for candidates with a distinguished record of scholarly publications and experience in postgraduate teaching and doctoral supervision, to fill A Chair in International Law (LAW1). The Law Department calls for applications for a Chair in International Law. Expertise is sought in general international law and in particular in regional and global systems of human rights.

JOB DESCRIPTION:

The chair will become vacant from 1 October 2012. The contract is for five years, renewable once for a period of three years. The Institute is an equal opportunity employer, and takes into account the importance of balance in gender, geographical and minority representation.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:

Interested applicants should contact:

CONTACT: The Director of the Academic Service, Dr. Andreas Frijdal, in order to receive an application and information pack.

Mary Footer (Univ. of Nottingham - Law) will give a talk today at the Oxford Public International Law Discussion Group on "Progressive Development of International Law and Its 'Softer' Codification."Katharina Pistor (Columbia Univ. - Law) will give a talk today at the Columbia Law School Faculty Workshop on "The Vienna Initiative: Model for Governing Interdependent Financial Systems."

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

This draft chapter is an attempt to discuss debates on the character of international law as a legal system. The chapter seeks to identify certain ideal-typical characteristics of international law and sees how those affect the debate on whether international law is "really law." It suggests that international law's distinctivness is that it is a legal system that resists both reform through centralization, absorption by empires, or dissolution through privatization.

With the proliferation of international organisations and their ever increasing role in a wide range of policy fields, situations multiply in which human rights are threatened or violated through the actions, operations or policies of such organisations. The present book, with carefully selected contributions from many prominent scholars and practitioners, is the first to explore these problems in a comprehensive manner and to examine the accountability mechanisms that are available.

In a first, cross-cutting part, the contributions study general concepts, such as the accountability of international organisations as an evolving legal concept, international organisations as independent actors, the logic of sliding scales in the law of international responsibility and the relations between the international organisations and their Member States in regard to their respective obligations and responsibilities.

The subsequent parts of the book focus on the accountability for human rights violations attributable to international organisations in four areas: (i) peace and humanitarian operations; (ii) international civil administration; (iii) economic governance; and (iv) staff of international organisations.

The how and why of connecting international human rights law and WTO law has been a hotly debated topic in international legal scholarship for quite some time. This book explores the extent to which these two sub-regimes of international law can be meaningfully linked as a matter of law and policy. WTO law on cultural and educational goods and services, thus far under-explored in this area of study, is taken as a case study.

The book first develops an international law based framework to assess the interface of human rights and WTO obligations. Its analysis reveals that GATT and GATS driven liberalisation in the area of culture and education raises tensions with various human rights norms. Applying the human rights/WTO law assessment framework, it is argued that these concerns would be best voiced by relying on the obligation to protect the right to education.

In the light of this situation the book first shows the potential to bring up this obligation in the context of WTO law and Dispute Settlement. The GATS clause relating to public services and the GATT/S General Exceptions provisions are found to be capable of accommodating States’ parallel human rights obligations. Yet, the book argues that this possibility alone will not automatically lead to a satisfactory result. Various remaining conceptual, methodological, and institutional barriers will need to be overcome. Further measures are suggested to ensure that human rights and WTO obligations can and will be taken equally seriously in practice.

Mary B. Ayad, Investor risks due to “Sovereign Immunity” pleas in Court Rulings on Arbitral Award Enforcement of MENA-FI Investments can be mitigated via a Harmonised International Commercial Arbitration Law Code

In its Empagran decision in 2004, the US Supreme Court decided that purchasers on foreign markets could not invoke US antitrust law even against a global cartel that affects also the United States. This article, forthcoming in a volume dedicated to the history on international law in the US Supreme Court, presents three radically different readings of the opinion. The result is that Empagran is a decision that is transnationalist in rhetoric, isolationist in application, and hegemonial in its effect. A decision with a seemingly straightforward argument is found riddled in the conflict between these different logics. A decision with few references to international law displays deep links to some of the most pressing international law issues. A decision with a forward‑looking globalization rhetoric finds itself mired in history. A decision praising harmony displays somber parallels to decisions refusing interference with the evil of slave trade. This has implications for our understanding of international law today, and for its place in its own history.

NGOs play an increasingly important role not only as international political actors but also as organizations involved in the creation, implementation and enforcement of international law. Have these organizations acquired an international status equivalent to that of States or international governmental organizations? This question is difficult to answer because there is a disparity between the reality of international NGO involvement and impact, and the international legal framework regulating this participation. Until now, NGO rules have developed organically within each organization, treaty body or international court. There is no unique set of international rules referring to NGOs as a category. In this context, it becomes relevant to survey and examine the international provisions that regulate NGO action at the international level in order to reach a conclusion on the legal status of NGOs and how this status should evolve and NGO accountability should be approached at the international level.

This paper explores the possibilities for linkages between various forms of positivism accepted by many international lawyers and various forms of cosmopolitanism advocated by scholars of global justice. Building on Bruno Simma's conception of "enlightened positivism," it identifies areas in which cosmopolitan trends have already seeped into the fabric of international law and the key gaps between positivist and cosmopolitan visions of international law and the international community. Emphasizing the contributions that philosophical inquiry can add to international legal scholarship, and vice-versa, it concludes with some thoughts on further integration of cosmopolitan thinking into positivist methodologies.